A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Strugglesby Thomas Sowell, Michael Edwards (Read by)
Controversies in politics arise from many sources, but the conflicts that endure for generations or centuries show a remarkably consistent pattern. In this classic work, Thomas Sowell analyzes the pattern. He describes the two competing visions that shape our debates about the nature of reason, justice, equality and power: the "constrained" vision, which sees human natures as unchanging and selfish, and the "unconstrained" vision, in which human nature is malleable and perfectible. A Conflict of Visions offers a convincing case that ethical and policy disputes circle around the disparity between both outlooks.
- Blackstone Audio, Inc.
- Publication date:
- Edition description:
- Product dimensions:
- 5.40(w) x 7.50(h) x 0.60(d)
Read an Excerpt
One of the curious things about political opinions is how often the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues. The issues themselves may have no intrinsic connection with each other. They may range from military spending to drug laws to monetary policy to education. Yet the same familiar faces can be found glaring at each other from opposite sides of the political fence, again and again. It happens too often to be coincidence and it is too uncontrolled to be a plot. A closer look at the arguments on both sides often shows that they are reasoning from fundamentally different premises. These different premisesoften implicitare what provide the consistency behind the repeated opposition of individuals and groups on numerous, unrelated issues. They have different visions of how the world works.
It would be good to be able to say that we should dispense with visions entirely and deal only with reality. But that may be the most utopian vision of all. Reality is far too complex to be comprehended by any given mind. Visions are like maps that guide us through a tangle of bewildering complexities. Like maps, visions have to leave out many concrete features in order to enable us to focus on a few key paths to our goals. Visions are indispensable-but dangerous, precisely to the extent that we confuse them with reality itself. What has been deliberately neglected may not in fact turn out to be negligible in its effect on the results. That has to be tested against evidence.
A vision has been described as a "pre-analytic cognitive act."' It is what we sense or feel before wehave constructed any systematic reasoning that could be called a theory, much less deduced any specific consequences as hypotheses to be tested against evidence. A vision is our sense of how the world works. For example, primitive man's sense of why leaves move may have been that some spirit moves them, and his sense of why tides rise or volcanoes erupt may have run along similar lines. Newton had a very different vision of how the world works and Einstein still another. For social phenomena, Rousseau had a very different vision of human causation from that of Edmund Burke.
Visions are the foundations on which theories are built. The final structure depends not only on the foundation, but also on how carefully and consistently the framework of theory is constructed and how well buttressed it is with hard facts. Visions are very subjective, but well-constructed theories have clear implications, and facts can test and measure their objective validity. The world learned at Hiroshima that Einstein's vision of physics was not just Einstein's vision.
Logic is an essential ingredient in the process of turning a vision into a theory, just as empirical evidence is then essential for determining the validity of that theory. But it is the initial vision which is crucial for our glimpse of insight into the way the world works. In Pareto's words:
Logic is useful for proof but almost never for making discoveries. A man receives certain impressions; under their influence he stateswithout being able to say either how or why, and if he attempts to do so he deceives himself-a proposition, which can be verified experimentally . . . .
Visions are all, to some extent, simplistic-though that is a term usually reserved for other people's visions, not our own. The ever-changing kaleidoscope of raw reality would defeat the human mind by its complexity, except for the mind's ability to abstract, to pick out parts and think of them as the whole. This is nowhere more necessary than in social visions and social theory, dealing with the complex and often subconscious interactions of millions of human beings.
No matter what vision we build on, it will never account for "every sparrow's fall." Social visions especially must leave many important phenomena unexplained, or explained only in ad hoc fashion, or by inconsistent assumptions that derive from more than one vision. The purest vision may not be the basis of the most impressive theories, much less the most valid ones. Yet purer visions may be more revealing as to unspoken premises than are the more complex theories. For purposes of understanding the role of visions, William Godwin's Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793) may tell us more than Marx's Capital. Indeed, we may understand more of Marx's Capital after we have seen how similar premises worked out in the simpler model of William Godwin. Likewise, the vision of social causation underlying the theories of the Physiocrats was in its essentials very much like the vision elaborated in a more complex and sophisticated way by Adam Smith and still later (and still more so) by Milton Friedman.
A vision, as the term is used here, is not a dream, a hope, a prophecy, or a moral imperative, though any of these things may ultimately derive from some particular vision. Here a vision is a sense of causation. It is more like a hunch or a "gut feeling" than it is like an exercise in logic or factual verification. These things come later, and feed on the raw material provided by the vision. If causation proceeds as our vision conceives it to, then certain other consequences follow, and theory is the working out of what those consequences are. Evidence is fact that discriminates between one theory and another. Facts do not "speak for themselves." They speak for or against competing theories. Facts divorced from theory or visions are mere isolated curiosities.
Theories can be devastated by facts but they can never be proved to be correct by facts. Ultimately there are as many visions as there are human beings, if not more, and more than one vision may be consistent with a given fact. Facts force us to discard some theoriesor else to torture our minds trying to reconcile the irreconcilablebut they can never put the final imprimatur of ultimate truth on a given theory.
Meet the Author
Thomas Sowell has taught economics at a number of colleges and universities, including Cornell, University of California Los Angeles, and Amherst. He has published both scholarly and popular articles and books on economics, and is currently a scholar in residence at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews
If you have ever wondered why political arguments never get anywhere, this is your book. Dr. Sowell has a keen insight into the contrasted visions. The fact that he does not refer to them as liberal and conservative makes it even more interesting. The previous review sounded very petty and did not help identify the great qualities of this book. Read this book and expect to get some real insight into the political philosophies that have never been so thoughtfully outlined as far as I can tell. It avoids the polical sniping that is all too common in pigeon holed conservative and liberal books.
I just asked Mr Sowell, a nice man by the way, about which of his books is the one he is most proud of... and this is the one! This is no review, but what I said may help those out there get to know the author a little bit... Anyways... if you want to see his website, it is tsowell dot com...
Being a college student, and one who is quite politically minded, I found Sowell's 'A Conflict of Visions' to be a very interesting read. He explains well why those with either an unconstrained (liberals) or constrained (conservatives) vision continuously end up with opposite viewpoints. There are many and deep reasons as to why this is so - all of which are explained by Sowell. If you consider yourself middle-of-the-road when it comes to politics, this book would definately help you figure out where you stand from a philosophical standpoint. In addition, it is an interesting and informative read for all! (Disregard that horribly uninformative review by Mr. Allen - he sounds a little to PC for Mr. Sowell)
After having to read this for a politics and government class and discussing my feelings towards the book with my professor, I feel justified in saying this book did nothing more than make me respect older dichotemies in political thought. The first thing that needs to be stated is that Sowell's book does not take in to account criticisms of the language at all. You will more likely find Sowell using a quotation with a gender-neutral term for humanity than use one himself. For example, the first paragraph on page 220 uses 8 nouns and gendered pronouns for humanity (ie. man, mankind, he, his, etc). His writing style more accurately reflects the early 1900's than it does 1988. Though this ought not be a barrier to reading a well written book, the repitition becomes oppressive to the reader. The true analysis of the book is fundamentally flawed. Sowell creates a split in 'visions' and claims that most politics falls on either side into one or two visions, but he acknowledges that there are exceptions. The two exceptions that he acknowledges are marxism and utilitarianism. The few among many that he fails to come to grips with are party coalitions (such as the current GOP coalition, or the former democratic coalitions that are clearly hybrid by supporting an unconstrained view in one area [economics in case of the gop or social affairs for the democrats] and constrained in another [vice versa respectively]), and foreign policy matters are excluded as well (hawk v. dove, globalist v. isolationist, unilateral v. multilateral). This dichotemy excludes such a large portion of the potential political spectrum that it loses basis with reality and therefore becomes a useless tool to understand political frameworks.